Can Mary be Sinless and Intercede for you?

[guanophore]

From my study of this these were second century documents that have no connection to the apostles. They are really fictional accounts of the early life of Jesus.

Is that right? what “study” is that?

How so? Take a look at I Cornthians 15:1-8 for the eyewitness accounts of the resurrection.

This cannot be considered scientific proof of anything!

Jesus never exalts His mother to the status that the Catholic church has. I do understand how Catholics would think this way about her since it sounds so reasonable. The problem is that its not based on Scripture or history.

How do you know what Jesus did? All you have is what you can glean out of your scripture through your blinders! You also clearly have little knowledge of history.

What does this have to do with Mary being sinless and able to intercede for you?

I don’t think the two are connected. Anyone can intercede, but being pure in the sight of God makes one’s prayers more effective.

Where does the fourth commandment state or imply that allowing a loved one' body to decay in death a dismissal of the 4th commandment? There is nothing in the OT that makes this assertion.

That is because the commandments are given for humans, and we don’t have the power to prevent one from decay. At least, not when they were written. I spose there is cryogenics now.

i have examined them and i’m trying to understand what they have to do with the topic?

Well, what a surprise!

How do you know she is praying? How can you say you know what the nature of the afterlife is in this regards if it has never been revealed?

I don’t think we can. All we know is what has been revealed. To Catholics it has been revealed that the saints plead for us before the throne of God.

Here is a quote from a section on these works from the Catholic Ency;

“Both Catholics and Gnostics were concerned in writing these fictions. The former had no other motive than that of a pious fraud, being sometimes moved by a real though misguided zeal, as witness the author of the Pseudo-Matthew: Amor Christi est cui satisfecimus. But the heretical apocryphists, while gratifying curiosity, composed spurious Gospels in order to trace backward their beliefs and peculiarities to Christ Himself. The Church and the Fathers were hostile even towards the narratives of orthodox authorship”

newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm#III1

If i’m not mistaken they were also condemned by Pope Gelasius and Pope Hormisdas.

This is an interesting commentary on the historical events, but it does not constitute “the church condemned them as false gospels”. Looks like you can’t back yourself up again.

I’m not ignoring you. How could i not like you???
Lets look at the meaning of this phrase and if it truly does mean without sin. Here is what the phrase means in Greek:
"Full of grace
χαριτόω charitóō; contracted charitó̄, fut. charitó̄sō, from cháris (5485), grace. To grace, highly honor or greatly favor. In the NT spoken only of the divine favor, as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28, kecharitōménē, the perf. pass. part. sing. fem. The verb charitóō declares the virgin Mary to be highly favored, approved of God to conceive the Son of God through the Holy Spirit. The only other use of charitóō is in Eph. 1:6 where believers are said to be “accepted in the beloved,” i.e., objects of grace.

Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) (G5486). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers"

If you look carefully there is no mention or hint of being sinless. Also note that this is the same word used for believers in Ephesians 1:6.
Couple this with Romans 5:12 where all men including Mary were under the sentence of Adam since she to was concieved of 2 human parents.

Sorry, ja4, you are trying to parse the wrong word.

Once again you have demonstrated your lack of understanding about the nature of sin, and grace.

It’s ok, tho, ja4. If you want to believe the Blessed Mother of God is a sinner, that is your perogative. What is puzzling is that you cannot tolerate others thinking about her differently. Why is that?

 

[eva6206213]

Good post!
up up up up up ~!

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Here is a quote from a section on these works from the Catholic Ency;
(Text removed)
If i’m not mistaken they were also condemned by Pope Gelasius and Pope Hormisdas. freesmileys.org/smileys/char048.gif " Hey, what is happening to my nose?" < Added for comic relief! >

**
JA4, :tsktsk: guanophore is going to get you again! There you go again, telling the same old lies! It had nothing to do with the Transitus Mariæ or Evangelium Joannis. If you were Catholic you could go to confession and be forgiven. Wait until Jesus gets his hands on you! It isn’t going to be pretty! Remember John 2:15!

Click on: The Truth

All truth is worth repeating over and over again!

“The Transitus Mariæ or Evangelium Joannis, which is written in the name of St. John the Apostle, and describes the death of Mary, enjoyed a wide popularity, as is attested by the various recensions in different languages which exist. The Greek has the superscription: “The Account of St. John the Theologian of the Falling Asleep of the Holy Mother of God”. One of the Latin versions is prefaced by a spurious letter of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, explaining that the object of the work was to counteract a heretical composition of the same title and subject. There is a basis of truth in this statement as our apocryphon betrays tokens of being a Gnostic writing worked over in an orthodox interest. A “Transitus Mariæ” is numbered among the apocrypha by the official list of the “Decretum of Gelasius” of the fifth or sixth century. It is problematic, however, whether this is to be identified with our recast Transitus or not. Critics assign the latter to the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century. The relation of the Transitus to the tradition of Mary’s Assumption has not yet been adequately examined. However, there is warrant for saying that while the tradition existed substantially in portions of the Church at an early period, and thus prepared the way for the acceptance of mythical amplifications, still its later form and details were considerably influenced by the Transitus and kindred writings. Certainly the homilies of St. John Damascene, “In Dormitionem Mariæ”, reveal evidence of this influence, e.g. the second homily, xii, xiii, xiv. Going further back, the “Encomium” of Modestus, Bishop of Jerusalem, in the seventh century (P.G., LXXXVI, 3311), and the Pseudo-Dionysius of the fifth (De divinis nominibus, iii), probably suppose an acquaintance with apocryphal narratives of the Death and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. These narratives have a common groundwork, though varying considerably in minor circumstances. The Apostles are preternaturally transported from different quarters of the globe to the Virgin’s deathbed, those who had died being resuscitated for the purpose. The “Departure” takes place at Jerusalem, though the Greek version places Mary first at Bethlehem. A Jew who ventures to touch the sacred body instantly loses both hands, which are restored through the mediation of the Apostles. Christ accompanied by a train of angels comes down to receive His mother’s soul. The Apostles bear the body to Gethsemani and deposit it in a tomb, whence it is taken up alive to Heaven.” **
[SIGN]**
Hail Mary, full of grace.
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen..
[/SIGN]
**
SJ4, As you know the saints, of which Mary is the chief example, are asked by us for intercessory prayer on our or others’ behalf. They are never offered prayer of worship. Since we are assured that they live on in heaven, by virtue of Christ’s sacrifice, they can offer intercessory prayer on our behalf. Yes, JA4, this concept is completely supported by scripture! Even in 1 Tim 2:1-4. While verse 5 is often quoted from this chapter for clarifying Christ’s unique role, the preceding four verses are often ignored:

[SIGN] QUOTE I Tim 2: 1-5 ~
1 I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men: 2 For kings, and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus:[/SIGN]
[SIGN]
**QUOTE Rev 5:8 “And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints”
QUOTE Rev 8:3 “And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God”. **[/SIGN]

"Behold, from now all generations shall call me blessed.
The Mighty One has done great things for me,
and holy is his name." Luke 1, 48-49
**
JA4 since you are outside the Church which was founded by Christ, and are part of a tradition started by John Calvin and the Waldenses, you have no authority to question 2,000 years of Sacred Tradition in the Apostolic Catholic Church**

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

How do you know she is praying? How can you say you know what the nature of the afterlife is in this regards if it has never been revealed?

Simple, the Church teaches this. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. It takes FAITH ja4. FAITH to believe Christ and His revelation found within His Church.

 

[Peter_J]

Here is a quote from a section on these works from the Catholic Ency;

Apocryphal gospels

The term apocryphal in connection with special Gospels must be understood as bearing no more unfavourable an import than “uncanonical”. This applies to the Gospel of the Hebrews and in a less degree to that of the Egyptians , which in the main seem to have been either embodiments of primitive tradition , or a mere recasting of canonical Gospels with a few variations and amplifications. It is true , all the extant specimens of the apocryphal Gospels take the inspired evangelical documents as their starting-point. But the genuine Gospels are silent about long stretches of the life of Our Lord , the Blessed Virgin , and St. Joseph . Frequently they give but a tantalizing glimpse of some episode on which we would fain be more fully informed. This reserve of the Evangelists did not satisfy the pardonable curiosity of many Christians eager for details, and the severe and dignified simplicity of their narrative left unappeased imaginations seeking the sensational and the marvellous. When, therefore, enterprising spirits responded to this natural craving by pretended Gospels full of romantic fables and fantastic and striking details, their fabrications were eagerly read and largely accepted as true by common folk who were devoid of any critical faculty and who were predisposed to believe what so luxuriously fed their pious curiosity. Both Catholics and Gnostics were concerned in writing these fictions. The former had no other motive than that of a pious fraud , being sometimes moved by a real though misguided zeal , as witness the author of the Pseudo-Matthew :Amor Christi est cui satisfecimus. But the heretical apocryphists , while gratifying curiosity, composed spurious Gospels in order to trace backward their beliefs and peculiarities to Christ Himself. The Church and the Fathers were hostile even towards the narratives of orthodox authorship. It was not until the Middle Ages , when their true origin was forgotten even by most of the learned, that these apocryphal stories began to enter largely into sacred legends , such as the “Aurea Sacra”, into miracle plays ,Christian art , and poetry. A comparison of the least extravagant of these productions with the real Gospels reveals the chasm separating them. Though worthless historically, the apocryphal Gospels help us to better understand the religious conditions of the second and third centuries, and they are also of no little value as early witnesses of the canonicity of the writings of the four Evangelists . The quasi-evangelistic compositions concerning Christ which make no pretensions to be Gospels will be treated elsewhere. They are all of orthodox origin. (See AGRAPHA .)

(I took the liberty of quoting the whole paragraph, rather than just the 4 sentences that you cited.)

Well, the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia isn’t, by any stretch of the imagination, 100% reliable 100% of the time, but I’m willing to concede that you are probably right in saying that the Apocryphal Gospels were pious fictions at best (or, in some cases like the Gospel of Thomas, lies and heresy).

So, yes, I agree that we have to be cautious about using them as support for doctrines. Nevertheless, something contained in an Apocryphal Gospel might be a valid doctrine if there is other support for it. For example, there’s evidence in Sacred Scripture for the Assumption of Mary (the woman in the Book of Revelation) even though it isn’t so explicit (debate about whether the woman represents Mary or the Church, or both).

 

[Peter_J]

Also note that this is the same word used for believers in Ephesians 1:6.

I haven’t done an extensive study, but it seems to me that Ephesians 1:6 says they are “graced”, but it doesn’t say they are “fully graced”.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4395049]

Originally Posted by justasking4
How so? Take a look at I Cornthians 15:1-8 for the eyewitness accounts of the resurrection.

guanophore
This cannot be considered scientific proof of anything!

In a court of law the eyewitness accounts hold a great deal of power. By eyewitness accounts a person can either be set free or condemned to death. From a historical perspective the more people who were eyewitnesses to an event the greater the likelihood it is true. Eyewitness accounts are not easily dispenced with.

 

[guanophore]

In a court of law the eyewitness accounts hold a great deal of power. By eyewitness accounts a person can either be set free or condemned to death. From a historical perspective the more people who were eyewitnesses to an event the greater the likelihood it is true. Eyewitness accounts are not easily dispenced with.

I agree, however, all those people are dead, and repeating the story of what they saw is considered in a court of law to be “hearsay”.

This is not admissible as evidence. Neither is it scientific. My point is that we accept their testimony based on faith, not “proof”.

 

[justasking4]

Realcatholicgk;4396087]**
Hail Mary, full of grace.
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.**

Is there any place in Scripture where Mary either says she is holy or someone refers to her as holy? This would be necessary if Mary is indeed holy i.e. without sin.

JA4 since you are outside the Church which was founded by Christ, and are part of a tradition started by John Calvin and the Waldenses, you have no authority to question 2,000 years of Sacred Tradition in the Apostolic Catholic Church

I nor do others need any authority to question your church or any church. Anyone who loves the truth will question…

 

[justasking4]

I agree, however, all those people are dead, and repeating the story of what they saw is considered in a court of law to be “hearsay”.

This is not admissible as evidence. Neither is it scientific. My point is that we accept their testimony based on faith, not “proof”.

You still must believe that their testimony is true and that they are telling you about events that actually did happen. That’s why the Scriptures spend a lot of time showing that our faith is grounded in facts and not mere heresay. Jesus Himself appealed to His miracles that He was God and possessed the power of God.

 

[justasking4]

What do you think is the subject of the Book of Revelation? Is it not the nature of the afterlife in Heaven and in Hell?

It really only tells some things about the future and not that much about now.

 

[guanophore]

Is there any place in Scripture where Mary either says she is holy or someone refers to her as holy? This would be necessary if Mary is indeed holy i.e. without sin.

There are different meanings for Holy. Mary was holy at the moment of her conception because she was chosen by God to bear His Son. This is holy in the sense of “consecrated” or set aside for a special spiritual purpose. There were many objects and vessels consecrated for use in worship that were considered holy.

Mary is also holy in the sense that all Christians are, that we are called and set aside by God when we are baptized to manifest HIm to the world.

She is also holy because she is the first Christian, and followed Christ from the moment of His conception to the present day, and has given her whole life over to Him. She chose to be his disciple, to hear the word of God and do it, and God’s grace is manifest in her life, just as it is for all of us that hear the word of God and obey it.

I nor do others need any authority to question your church or any church. Anyone who loves the truth will question…

Certainly you may take such authority upon yourself, and you may attack the Church founded by Christ at your own peril. Your questions are not those of a person who wants to learn, but of a person who is looking to find fault, to bite and tear at the Body. There are eternal consequences for this kind of behavior.

Y ou still must believe that their testimony is true and that they are telling you about events that actually did happen.

Actually, I don’t. They also testified that they passed their authority on to their successors, and you deny that. No one “must believe” the testimony of Jesus’ disciples.

Y That’s why the Scriptures spend a lot of time showing that our faith is grounded in facts and not mere heresay. Jesus Himself appealed to His miracles that He was God and possessed the power of God.

The Scriptures are a testiment of faith, and the gospels were called by the early Christians “the memoirs of the Apostles”. They were never intended to be “proof texts” but were written by the faithful, for the faithful, to confirm believers in the faith. They are full of examples that cannot be considered “facts” or be proven. Yes, I agree, there is evidence, but without faith, the evidence will pursuade no one.

 

[guanophore]

It really only tells some things about the future and not that much about now.

It would appear that you have a lot to learn about this mysterious apocalyptic book. In fact, it tells quite a bit about the past, as much as it does now, and the future. I look forward to your growth in this area.

 

[AshleyBelle]

It would appear that you have a lot to learn about this mysterious apocalyptic book. In fact, it tells quite a bit about the past, as much as it does now, and the future. I look forward to your growth in this area.

This is off topic, but we just came back from the bookstore…and picked up this series on DVD where Dr. Scott Hahn goes through his book “The Lamb’s Supper.” It’s supposed to go through the book of revelation and show how it relates to the mass…and explain the parallelle’s to “the mass as heaven on earth.” I cant’ wait to start listnening to it! Maybe I can contribute to this conversation a little more afterwards…since I agree…it sounds like ja4 could use the information too

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Oh, it is you! (the good speller!) I am going to call you Steve. I hate to use your formal name JustAsking4the 100thTime and I checked with the TOS and they won’t permit me calling you what you actually are, so let’s settle on Steve!

How are you, Steve? And the family?

Is there any place in Scripture where Mary either says she is holy or someone refers to her as holy?

Not sure what you meant. Can you clarify?

This would be necessary if Mary is indeed holy i.e. without sin.

No it wouldn’t! It doesn’t say a lot of thisngs in the Bible that are true. It even says many things that are false! Who cares? We follow all Sacred Tradition both Oral and Written. That makes us perfect Christians according to the scriptures!

I nor do others need any authority to question your church or any church. Anyone who loves the truth will question.

But, as you are slowly coming to realize in your own search. They won’t get the right answers without the real Church’s interpretation.

.

 

[justasking4]

Realcatholicgk;4397336]
justasking4
This would be necessary if Mary is indeed holy i.e. without sin.

Realcatholicgk
No it wouldn’t! It doesn’t say a lot of thisngs in the Bible that are true. It even says many things that are false! Who cares? We follow all Sacred Tradition both Oral and Written. That makes us perfect Christians according to the scriptures!

If by written Sacred Tradiition you mean the NT then you are incorrect. It never asserts with her. Nor sure how you can show that “Oral Tradition” supports this since you don’t know specifically what this was.

justasking4
I nor do others need any authority to question your church or any church. Anyone who loves the truth will question.
Realcatholicgk
But, as you are slowly coming to realize in your own search. They won’t get the right answers without the real Church’s interpretation.

How am i going to get the “real Church’s interpretation” of Scripture when your church has never produced such a work? i wish it did…

.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

If by written Sacred Tradiition you mean the NT then you are incorrect. It never asserts with her. Nor sure how you can show that “Oral Tradition” supports this since you don’t know specifically what this was.

**Hi steve! No I meant the other written tradition, silly! Go ahead, use your notes or memory, then we can move right to the condemned gospel joke that you always make! The oral tradition is much easier, “watch my lips!” Ready: “Mary is Sinless and Intercedes for us. She is full of grace, she was assumed into heaven and she awaits her children to join her and her Son.” See? Now you know! **

How am i going to get the “real Church’s interpretation” of Scripture when your church has never produced such a work? i wish it did…

.**The same way you do with all our other teachings! Make them up as you go along, you silly goose! Really ,Steve you are funny! but we need to stop joking around! OK? These are serious subjects. Please try to treat them as such! :tsktsk: **

**I will be truthful to you OK? The only way YOU could get the real church’s interpretation of the real church’s scriptures is to be confirmed into the real church, Your local parish should have RCIA classes. After completing them, with your intelligence and extensive knowledge of our catholic faith already I can’t see it taking you more than 15 or 20 years at the most. **
**Then, as a Catholic, you would know the real church’s interpretation. As an “outsider” you could read our CCC. It tells it all. They even use small words some times. We can help you with the really hard ones ,if you need help, just ask! That is why we are here! **

 

[justasking4]

Realcatholicgk;4397730]
justasking4.
How am i going to get the “real Church’s interpretation” of Scripture when your church has never produced such a work? i wish it did…
Realcatholicgk
.The same way you get our teachings! Make them up as yopu go along, you silly goose. Really Steve you are funny! But we need to stop joking! OK these are serious subjects. Please treat them as such!

I will be truthful to you OK? The only way YOU could get the real church’s interpretation of the real church’s scriptures is to be confirmed into the real church, Your local parish should have RCIA classes. After completing them, with your intelligence and extensive knowledge of our catholic faith already I can’t see it taking you more than 15 or 20 years at the most. Then, as a Catholic, you would know the real church’s interpretation. As an “outsider” you could read our CCC. It tells it all. They even use small words some times. We can help you withe the really hard ones if you need help. That is why we are here!

If your responses are an indication of what is taught in these RCIA classes —no thanks.

 

[RobHom]

If your responses are an indication of what is taught in these RCIA classes —no thanks.

Actually…I think maybe the poster’s response is due to the “style” of many of your responses… Perhaps if you were to “accept” what you are told as truth according to the Catholic Church, which by the way is not binding upon you…and cease with the immature and pedantic rehashing in a repetitively redundant manner the same questions…you might find different responses.

You have asked probably the same questions a multitude of times, you have been given the answers a multitude of times, yet you still refuse to accept the fact that your beliefs are different than ours, and you also fail to accept the fact that we will not change our beliefs to suit your desires.

Its really quite simple. And its rather disingenuous of you to take umbrage or exception to someone’s response to you when you do the same, is it not?

 

[justasking4]

Actually…I think maybe the poster’s response is due to the “style” of many of your responses… Perhaps if you were to “accept” what you are told as truth according to the Catholic Church, which by the way is not binding upon you…and cease with the immature and pedantic rehashing in a repetitively redundant manner the same questions…you might find different responses.

You have asked probably the same questions a multitude of times, you have been given the answers a multitude of times, yet you still refuse to accept the fact that your beliefs are different than ours, and you also fail to accept the fact that we will not change our beliefs to suit your desires.

Its really quite simple. And its rather disingenuous of you to take umbrage or exception to someone’s response to you when you do the same, is it not?

Are you also a product of these RCIA classes? Do they teach you to think you can read minds over the net and draw your conclusions with people instead of real dialogue?